DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Specifically, the addition of the word “like” to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite, because it is unclear what “plate-like” is intended to convey. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(III)(E).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rowe (20030234231).
Regarding claim 1, Rowe teaches a bracket assembly (10, 17), characterized in comprising a bracket (10) comprising a first bracket wall and a second bracket wall (Fig. 5) arranged in opposition to each other and defining a mounting cavity (i.e., space within 10 - see Fig. 5) therebetween.
Regarding claim 2, Rowe teaches a guide structure (17) provided in the mounting cavity (Fig. 5), which is configured for passage therethrough of a fastener (9) for attaching a carrier component (5) to the bracket and to allow fasteners of the same size to be used at different locations of the bracket (implied by Figs. 3 & 5).
Regarding claim 3, Rowe teaches a guide structure (17) that comprises a through hole (i.e., hole in 20 & 22, through which 9 passes - see Figs. 4-5) used for passage of the fastener therethrough, and the guide structure further comprises a guide channel (19) used for passage of the fastener therethrough, the guide channel extending in a direction in which the fastener is mounted (Fig. 5), the guide channel and the through hole are sequentially arranged in the direction in which the fastener is mounted (Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 4, Rowe teaches a guide structure (17) integrally formed (Fig. 5) with the bracket (10).
Regarding claim 5, Rowe teaches a guide structure (17) that comprises a guide member (17) connected to the bracket within the mounting cavity thereof, the guide member defining the through hole (i.e., hole in 20 & 22) and the guide channel (19).
Regarding claim 6, Rowe teaches a guide member (17) that comprises a connecting portion (20) and a guide portion (18), which are joined to each other, the connecting portion connected to the bracket (Fig. 5), the guide portion defining the guide channel (19).
Regarding claim 7, Rowe teaches a guide member (17) that further has a locating portion (23) which is joined to the connecting portion (20) and extend out of the mounting cavity (Fig. 5) and is configured to abut (via 10) against the carrier component (5).
Claim(s) 1 & 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (KR100979280).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a bracket assembly (40), characterized in comprising a bracket (49) comprising a first bracket wall and a second bracket wall (A in Fig. 6a Annotated) arranged in opposition to each other (Fig. 5b) and defining a mounting cavity (B) therebetween (Fig. 5b).
PNG
media_image1.png
202
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches an anti-dislodgement structure (44, 46, C) disposed within the mounting cavity of the bracket (Figs. 6a-6b), the anti-dislodgement structure configured to be able to move relative to the bracket (Figs. 6a-6b), the anti-dislodgement structure comprising a stop portion (44) configured to be able to extend out of the mounting cavity of the bracket and be coupled to an upright column (30) or horizontal beam to which the bracket is coupled (Fig. 7), thereby restricting the bracket from dislodging from the upright column or horizontal beam.
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches an anti-dislodgement structure (44, 46, C) that comprises a stop element (44, C) comprising a slide portion (C) and the stop portion (44), the stop portion located at one end of the slide portion (Fig. 6a-6b), the slide portion able to slide relative to the bracket (49) so that the stop portion extends out of the mounting cavity or that the stop portion disengages from the upright column or horizontal beam (Figs. 6a-6b).
Claim(s) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nilsson (20190110593).
Regarding claim 16, Nilsson teaches a storage rack system (1), characterized in comprising an upright column (3), a bracket assembly (5) and a carrier component (9), the bracket assembly comprising a bracket comprising a first bracket wall and a second bracket wall, which are arranged in opposition to each other and define a mounting cavity therebetween (Figs. 1 & 6), the bracket coupled at one end to the upright column (Fig. 1), the carrier component attached to the bracket, wherein the bracket is configured to allow carrier components of at least two different structures to be attached thereto (i.e., a shelf or a drawer - see Figs. 1 & par. 22).
Regarding claim 17, Nilsson teaches a carrier component (9) that comprises a plate-like shelf (i.e., horizontal portion of 9) which is attached to the bracket (5) by a fastener (23, 31).
Regarding claim 18, Nilsson teaches a carrier component (9) attached to the bracket (5) by means of a guide rail (27) to which the carrier component is slidably coupled (par. 22).
Regarding claim 19, Nilsson teaches a bracket (5) that defines a plurality of notches (17, 19) arranged in a row in a lengthwise direction of the bracket (Fig. 2), wherein the guide rail (27) comprises a plurality of engagement elements (23, 31) which protrude from a side surface thereof (Fig. 6) and engage in the respective notches (Figs. 3-5), and wherein the engagement elements include engagement hooks (23, 31 - see Figs. 4-5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 10-11 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR100979280) in view of Friedmann (1702937).
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including first & second bracket walls (A) and a slide portion (C); but fail(s) to teach a first slide slot. However, Friedmann teaches guiding means (49, 51) comprising a first slide slot (49) in a first bracket wall (12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add guiding means, as taught by Friedmann, to the assembly of Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the slide portion to slidably move in a controlled manner. Hence, Kim as modified would teach a slide portion (C of Kim & 51 of Friedmann) that is slidably disposed in the first slide slot (49 of Friedmann).
Regarding claim 11, Kim as modified teaches an anti-dislodgement structure (44, 46, C of Kim & 51 of Friedmann) that further comprises a manipulation portion (46) protruding out of the bracket (49), the manipulation portion joined to the slide portion (Fig. 6a), the manipulation portion actuatable by an external force to cause the slide portion to slide in the first slide slot (Figs. 6a-6b), and the bracket defines a first avoidance slot (D), the manipulation portion passing through the first avoidance slot and protruding out of the bracket (Fig. 6a).
Regarding claim 15, Kim teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a bracket (49); but fail(s) to teach an adjustment member or slide slot. However, Friedmann teaches adjustment means (55, 76) comprising an adjustment member (55) movable relative to a bracket (53) out of or into a mounting cavity (54) thereof, wherein the adjustment member, when extending out of the mounting cavity, is located at an end of the bracket, thereby increasing a length of the bracket (Fig. 7), and wherein: the adjustment member is slidably coupled to the bracket (implied by Figs. 7-8; p. 3, line 78; & p. 4, lines 39-43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add adjustment means, as taught by Friedmann, to the assembly of Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the assembly to accommodate shelves having different widths. Additionally, Friedmann further teaches guiding means (49, 51) comprising a slide slot (49) defined in a first bracket wall (17) of a bracket (12) & extending in a lengthwise direction of the bracket (Figs. 1-2), and a slide (51) of an adjustment member (12a) that is slidable within the slide slot (Figs. 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add guiding means, as taught by Friedmann, to the assembly of Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the slide portion to slidably move in a controlled manner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 8-9 & 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowe (20030234231) in view of Keil (1974050).
Regarding claim 8, Rowe teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including first & second bracket walls and a mounting cavity; but fail(s) to teach an anti-dislodgement structure. However, Keil teaches connecting means (20f & 27-30) comprising an anti-dislodgement structure (27 & 29-30) disposed within a mounting cavity (20f) of a bracket (20), the anti-dislodgement structure configured to be able to move relative to the bracket (p. 2, lines 103-110 & 128-140), the anti-dislodgement structure comprising a stop portion (30e) configured to be able to extend out of the mounting cavity of the bracket and be coupled to an upright column or horizontal beam to which the bracket is coupled (Fig. 1), thereby restricting the bracket from dislodging from the upright column or horizontal beam (p. 2, lines 151-154). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add connecting means, as taught by Keil, to the assembly of Rowe, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent accidental dislodgment of the bracket.
Regarding claim 9, Keil teaches anti-dislodgement structure (27 & 29-30) that comprises a stop element (30) comprising a slide portion (30a-30b) and the stop portion (30e), the stop portion located at one end of the slide portion (Fig. 1), the slide portion able to slide relative to a bracket (20) so that the stop portion extends out of a mounting cavity (20f) or that the stop portion disengages from the upright column or horizontal beam (Figs. 1 & 3).
Regarding claim 12, Rowe as modified teaches an anti-dislodgement structure (27 & 29-30 of Keil) that comprises a support member (27 of Keil) disposed on the first bracket wall and/or the second bracket wall of the bracket (10 of Rowe), the support member defining a second slide slot (28b of Keil) along which the slide portion is configured to be slidable (Figs. 1 & 3 of Keil).
Regarding claim 13, Rowe as modified teaches an anti-dislodgement structure (27 & 29-30 of Keil) that further comprises a manipulation portion (29 of Keil) sleeved on the slide portion (30a-30b of Keil), wherein the slide portion defines a first thread (30b of Keil) and a portion of the manipulation portion in contact with the slide portion defines a second thread in engagement with the first thread (implied by Fig. 1 & p. 2, lines 96-98 of Keil) so that the slide portion is actuated to move when the manipulation portion is rotated (p. 2, lines 103-110 & 128-140 of Keil); the bracket (5 of Rowe) defines a second avoidance slot (20f of Keil) at which the support member is provided; and the manipulation portion is disposed in the support member (27 of Keil) and is at least partially exposed outside of the bracket (implied by Figs. 7 & 11 of Keil).
Regarding claim 14, Keil teaches a first thread (30b) that is absent from a surface of the stop portion (30e) in contact (via 30a) with the second slide slot (28b).
Claim 19 is alternately rejected, along with claim 20, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nilsson (20190110593). Nilsson teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including first connecting means (19, 23, 25) comprising a notch (19) defined in a bracket; an engagement element (23) defined in a rail (27) & protruding from a side surface thereof (Fig. 6) & engaging in a notch (Figs. 3-4), and wherein the engagement element is an engagement hook (Fig. 4); and a stopper (25) of the guide rail which protrudes from the side surface and engage in the same notch as the engagement element at an opposite ends of the notch (Fig. 4). Nilsson fail(s) to teach a plurality of notches, engagement elements, & stoppers. However, mere duplication & rearrangement of parts has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04); and Nilsson broadly teaches arranging second connecting means (17, 19, 23, 31) in a row (Figs. 3-5) in a lengthwise direction of a bracket (5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add an additional first connecting means to the assembly of Nilsson, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a stronger connection between the guide rail & bracket.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW ING whose telephone number is (571)272-6536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m.. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Troy can be reached at (571) 270-3742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/MATTHEW W ING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637